David Miliband: We know the hon. Gentleman's position. He says that leaving the EU would be a positive step. I suggest that he reads the legal draft that came out on Friday, which was put in the Library and given to the Clerks of the Committees of the House. It makes absolutely clear the direction in which Europe is moving, which is to respect the red lines that the United Kingdom has asked for. I commend to him the words of the chairman his own party's democracy taskforce, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said that if Parliament cannot decide this sort of thing, Parliament is worthless. Parliament should not be worthless.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister has clearly looked at the scrutiny report and will have read its paragraph 71, where the Committee characterises the drafting process as
	"essentially secret... conducted by the Presidency, with texts produced at the last moment".
	It goes on to say:
	"The compressed timetable now proposed, having regard to the sitting terms of national parliaments, could not have been better designed to marginalise their role."
	Do the Government agree with that view?

Vincent Cable: May I also sympathise with the Chancellor for having obviously spent the past 72 hours rewriting a speech that was originally intended to be a chapter in the election manifesto, and for having only just recovered from the ignominy of being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1866 to preside over a run on a bank? Not since Black Wednesday has there been such a collapse of confidence in the authority of Government.
	Let me begin with the key point in the Chancellor's statement: the slowdown in the economy. We are in a rapidly changing and deteriorating environment. In the United States, to which we are closely linked,Alan Greenspan estimated that the risk of a recession approaches 50 per cent. What is the Chancellor's assessment of the risk of a recession in Britain—50 per cent., 30 per cent., 20 per cent., 10 per cent.? It is an important question because factors that could precipitate a recession in the United States—personal debt and a bursting bubble in the housing market—are even more extreme in the United Kingdom.
	Let me put to the Chancellor a question that I posed to his predecessor four years ago. I asked,
	"is not the brutal truth that... the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level?"—[ Official Report, 13 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 397.]
	In the subsequent four years, every one of those indicators has deteriorated. Cannot the Chancellor bring himself to accept that millions of families are being squeezed by a combination of reducing disposable income and higher interest rates as a result of moving from fixed-rate mortgages in the next few months? Does not he accept that there is a major vulnerability in the UK economy?
	The slowdown has major implications for the spending review, which makes grim reading for many Departments. The Chancellor has promised the largest increase in health spending. As I understand it, he said today that health spending will grow by 4 per cent. Will he confirm that the Wanless report argued that 4.4 per cent. growth was the absolute minimum required to sustain improvements in patient care? That assumed that the maximum amount of health service reform was achieved, which has clearly not happened. Will he confirm that, when we consider all the spending commitments, the growth that he suggests—I believe that it is 1.9 per cent. a year—is only fractionally higher than that achieved in the 18 years of Conservative government?
	Will not local government now take the biggest hit? Something that did not appear in the statement but is buried in the report is the fact that council tax is due to rise by 5 per cent. a year throughout the UK. That tax bears disproportionately on low- income families and pensioners. At a time when the Chancellor is scrambling to catch up with the Conservatives on inheritance tax, why has he paid no attention to a report and an analysis conducted over four years on the need for reform of that hated and regressive form of taxation?
	On poverty more generally, has the Chancellor made time today to glance at the parliamentary ombudsman's report on tax credits, which has the wonderful, evocative title, "Tax Credits: Getting It Wrong?"? Is he willing to be a little more open-minded than his predecessor and consider the parliamentary ombudsman's recommendations for simplifying and making a great deal fairer that hopelessly overcomplicated system?

Alistair Darling: First, may I apologise if we sent a series of blank sheets of paper to the Liberals—[Hon. Members: "You always apologise."] Well, I will apologise, but it did enable the hon. Gentleman to jot down today's Liberal party policy. Rather like the Conservatives, he overlooks the fact that over the past few years we have established a strong and stable economy, which will enable us to deal with the uncertainty that we face today. As I have said to the House and as I said last week, the reason we have adjusted our growth figures is that it is sensible in the light of what people are saying—that the uncertainty will have an effect not just here but across the world—to do that.
	If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I agree with him that there ought to be more fixed-rate mortgages. Indeed, I said that during my statement and I said it just a few weeks ago. I would like people to be able to fix their mortgage rates for a lot longer, not just because that would be good for them, but because it would be good for the country as a whole.
	I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to the Department of Health. We have been able to increase the amount of money being spent on health over the past few years. There is a further 4 per cent. real terms increase, which will enable us not only to build more hospitals and provide new GP practices, but to provide health check-ups for individuals, which is important. It has never been clear to me whether the Liberals want to spend more on health or less—it really depends on what day we are listening to them. What I do know, having looked at the Liberals' proposals on tax, which cost around £18 billion a year, is that it is not clear where they are going to get the money from even to finance a small part of what we believe is necessary in public services.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about poverty. I strongly believe that we need to do more to reduce pensioner poverty and child poverty. Today I announced proposals to take another 100,000 children out of poverty. However, the Liberals' proposals on income tax would actually disproportionately benefit people with higher incomes, so I do not think that he is in a particularly strong position to lecture us on that.
	As I said at the last Treasury Question Time, there are problems in the administration of tax credits. However, the hon. Gentleman should not lose sight of the fact that more than 6 million families have benefited from tax credits. I believe that the policy of helping people on low incomes is absolutely right, which is why I intend to stick with it.

Alistair Darling: For many years, in the House and outside, my right hon. Friend has campaigned for an increase in the amount that we contribute to overseas aid. I remember wondering years ago—before I was in the House, and during my first 10 years here—whether we would ever be able to get back on track to meet our international obligations. Now we are back on track, and have been able to bring forward the date for our commitment of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product.
	As my right hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister and his predecessor spent a great deal of time at Gleneagles securing international agreement and persuading all countries to join us. I am absolutely committed to meeting our international obligations. I only hope that there is cross-party support for that—although I bound to say that, given their spending commitments, it is not clear to me how on earth the Opposition could possibly meet them.

Anne Moffat: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the activities which can be undertaken in UK ports; to place certain duties on harbour authorities; and for connected purposes.
	Colleagues will know that this is certainly a complex issue. I have raised it in the House on many occasions, but it has become increasingly clear that UK regulations that comply with the habitats directive need to be put in place. Under such regulations, the implications—and, if necessary, the public-interest arguments—of the firth of Forth scheme and similar proposals could be fully considered.
	The seas around the UK currently have no legal protection. That means that some of Scotland's most precious wildlife, from sea birds to seahorses, is at risk from human impacts such as shipping, marine developments, fishing and pollution. Currently, 85 different pieces of legislation govern activities in Scotland's seas. That legislation needs to be consolidated and brought up to date if we are to protect our marine wildlife and our coastal communities.
	In my constituency, the biggest threat at present is the proposal to allow ship-to-ship oil transfers in the firth of Forth, and my Bill is designed to address the lack of any appropriate regulation or framework. At present, ship-to-ship oil transfers can be carried out within a harbour authority area if that harbour authority has in place an approved oil spill contingency plan that covers such activities. The underlying principle is that ship-to-ship transfers in harbour authority areas should take place only where there is a fully worked-up oil spill contingency plan, with trained personnel—and the necessary equipment for responding to a spill—close at hand.
	Many hon. Members will know that my constituency of East Lothian has one of the finest coastlines in the UK. It attracts 2.5 million visitors every year, with all the obvious advantages for local communities, including the employment of up to 3,500 people in the tourist industry. The coastline stretches from Cockburnspath north to Musselburgh, and its beauty is valued by locals and visitors alike. The coastline also has nine designated bathing waters from Seton Sands down to Thornton loch, and anyone travelling on the east coast main line will see its breathtaking beauty at first hand.
	The East Lothian coastline is one of outstanding natural heritage. Ninety per cent. of the coastline is classified as a Forth special protection area. Over the recess, I have collated evidence from across the constituency of the determination of my constituents to oppose the proposal. I have a petition with hundreds of signatures; I have thousands of postcards that constituents have signed and returned confirming that they wish me to oppose the proposal, which would see 7.8 million tonnes of crude oil transferred in the firth of Forth.
	My constituents and I do not wish to consider the consequences of an oil spill in our beautiful waters, whether there are contingency plans in place or not. In recent years, public money has delivered major improvements to the coastline and beaches of East Lothian, and that investment should never be put at risk. Hon. Members might ask whether there is a genuine risk from the proposal for ship-to-ship transfer of oil. The answer is absolutely yes. The potential hazards include oil spills, vessel collision, fire and explosion, environmental emissions, damage to coastal and sea bed habitats, damage to tourism and damage to fishing. It is an accident waiting to happen. I, for one, do not want to trust and hope that, if such an oil spill were to occur in the firth of Forth, the contingency plans would preserve the integrity of the coastline and nature conservation sights. I am introducing this ten-minute Bill because I remain of the view that the current legislation has the balance right between protecting the environment and allowing the port authorities to facilitate commercial and economic activity.
	There is some provision to regulate and, if necessary, prevent ship-to-ship transfers in the Forth. Those functions are vested in Forth Ports, which has power under byelaws enacted under local legislation to regulate whether vessels can anchor to transfer cargo. As a competent port authority under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, Forth Ports must have regard to the requirements of the habitats directive. The amendments to the habitats regulations in Scotland are very good, and adequate to deal with the European wildlife sites dimension of projects in the Forth. They were passed with all-party support in the Scottish Parliament. The detailed process for consent to plans and projects set out by the current regulations does not deal specifically with, or apply to, oil transfers, however. Unlike other types of port development, programmes of ship-to-ship transfers are not subject to environmental impact assessment regulations either in Scotland or in the rest of the UK, regardless of their frequency or volume.
	The missing link in the legislative framework is a sensible set of UK regulations controlling ship-to-ship transfers in UK waters. The absence of clear national consenting mechanisms for marine plans or projects and for ship-to-ship cargo transfers in particular has led the firth of Forth to a highly unsatisfactory default position. The consent for a major oil handling project must be determined by the board of directors of a public limited company, the share price of which seems inevitably to be affected by that decision. That seems an invidious position for Forth Ports plc. Meanwhile, UK and Scottish Ministers have no power of veto. Ship-to-ship transfer as an activity slips through the net and the public are denied a voice.
	No wonder there exists a widely and strongly held perception of a conflict of interest on the part of statutory harbour authorities when they are also by nature public limited companies with duties to their shareholders. Surely this is at odds with the need for impartial regulation and with the spirit, if not the letter, of the habitats regulations.
	In East Lothian, for instance, there is a perception of a reluctance on the part of the harbour authority to address the legitimate concerns of local communities and others, and that has resulted in an unfortunate amount of mistrust and ill feeling. The mistrust is exacerbated by the difficulty experienced by members of the public in gaining access to environmental information gathered by the harbour authority. This fuels accusations of secrecy and questions the impartiality of the harbour authority. How can a body that may benefit financially from granting consent be seen to regulate the activity transparently and without prejudice? These issues could be addressed by incorporating into new regulations for ship-to-ship transfers a clear process to be followed by harbour authorities. The authority to consider that falls wholly within Westminster.
	The Bill seeks, by regulating the activities that can be undertaken in UK ports, the provision for transfers to be prohibited or consented to only subject to strict conditions. Regulation of the activities that can be undertaken in UK ports under the Bill should avoid the potential conflicts of interest for bodies that currently act both as the competent authorities and the financial beneficiaries of such transfers. The Bill would ensure that harbour authorities are more clearly accountable to the public for their environmental responsibilities and in carrying out their statutory functions. The decision-making process in relation to ports' development is complex and often less than transparent. There must be scope for simplification and regulation in particular if the habitats directive does not fully meet the requirement to protect our waters from the impact of such proposals.
	A common approach from the Government and the devolved Administration to work with the industry and other interested parties to simplify and rationalise the procedures is now required. Successive Governments have sought to separate regulation from those with a commercial interest in consents. For example, the water industry is regulated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the forestry industry by the Forestry Commission, and town and country planning proposals in which the local planning authority stands to benefit may be called in by Ministers.
	The Bill seeks to ensure that clear habitats directive compliant procedures are followed by harbour authorities in consenting to ship-to-ship proposals and would give call-in power to Ministers to avoid apparent conflicts of interests.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Anne Moffat, Jim Sheridan, Mr. Jim McGovern, Mr. David Hamilton, Mr. John MacDougall, Mr. David Anderson, Mark Lazarowicz, Mr. Jim Devine, Dr. Gavin Strang and Nigel Griffiths.

Bob Ainsworth: Let me make a little progress. I have given way a lot and I do not want to hog the debate.
	Our largest future programme for the Army is the future rapid effect system— FRES. It will consist of a family of vehicles that have high levels of protection but which are capable of being transported by air, thus allowing troops to deploy rapidly across the globe. The first variant will be the utility vehicle, and we announced the acquisition strategy at the end of last year. Since then, we have conducted trials of potential vehicle designs and we will announce the results next month. Last week, my noble Friend Lord Drayson announced that a team from Thales UK and Boeing had been selected almost two months ahead of schedule as the system of systems integrator—SOSI. That represents excellent progress.

Quentin Davies: It goes without saying that if that is the case, the best deal will be procured from that source.
	I think it fair to identify four phases in the history of defence procurement in recent times. The standard cost-plus model was universal in the world until the 1980s, but economically it was clearly an extremely wasteful and damaging process. The defence industry had no incentive to keep its costs down, unlike any industry operating in normal market conditions. Ultimately that is very bad for an industry, because it prevents it from becoming as efficient and innovative as it should be.
	We took the first steps in moving away from that model under Peter Levene, now Lord Levene, when he became chief of defence procurement. We moved to a competition-oriented model, with which we encountered great difficulties, because when major projects involve major technology risks, people are not prepared to quote a fixed price. That makes it necessary to return to a system of contractual arrangements under which much of the risk is taken by the procurer, who must do a deal at a very early stage with the supplier, and as a result it is not possible for competition to operate effectively.
	We then moved to the smart procurement system, which we used until fairly recently. Its main aims were was to prevent a confrontational relationship between the supplier and the purchaser, to ensure that one did not try to cheat the other, and to give an incentive for everyone with expertise and answers to bring them to the table. The insight was relevant, and there is no doubt that smart procurement has produced some great successes—along with some very difficult problems, some of which have been mentioned today. However, we have all found that it is not the whole answer, because it, too, does not allow us to benefit fully from competition. There is always a tendency to oppose the forming of an initial partnership solely with the prime contractor and favour letting in parts of the supply chain to gain the real benefit and the real ideas, and that means a diminishing of competition throughout the system.
	Now we are moving to a system that was called DPA Forward, until the two agencies were merged. I think we will all be very interested to see how it works and what it consists of, but my view is that where smart procurement needs to be tweaked, modulated or reviewed, the main purpose should be to ensure that we can benefit more from competition. There are a number of problems, one of which is that there is a limited amount of competition within the frontiers of the United Kingdom. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, there is competition in shipbuilding, between companies such as Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems, and that is fine; but in some areas it is impossible to benefit from competition without going outside the United Kingdom.
	In the United States it will almost always be possible to meet defence requirements by buying something off the shelf, but that would probably be the last contract that the buyer would ever let, because we would no longer have any capability of our own. Next time around we would be entirely dependent on an American supplier. Not only would we have no leverage in terms of price and normal commercial negotiations, but we might well find ourselves in precisely the difficulty that we have experienced with the joint strike fighter. We might not get the necessary technology, or the Americans might try to sell us something slightly sub-standard that did not involve the latest technology. We cannot put ourselves into such a position.
	Unless someone has thought of a fifth route that has not occurred to me, there is only one alternative to that range of possibilities, with the difficulties that are attached to them. That is more competition within the European Union. It has been established for a long time that that would be desirable if it could be achieved, and there have been various attempts to achieve it. It is also generally recognised that the old system of joint procurement that was used for the Tornado was hopeless because it was based on the principle of juste retour, which means that every country that is part of the consortium involved must receive a proportion of procurement equivalent to the proportion of the funds that it contributed to the initial development and research costs. That was a very inefficient and anti-competitive system.
	We then established OCCAR—the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation—a joint procurement agency based in Paris, which is another bureaucracy. I do not wish to run the agency down, for it has done some good work, but it has also experienced some problems. I do not think that the A400M, for instance, has been a brilliant success so far. That system does not strike me as ideal. It is very bureaucratic; it is not competition, or the use of markets.
	We have a market—the single market—which has been outstandingly successful in every other area of economic activity that anyone cares to mention. Let me make a suggestion. I am not advocating this, because I do not know enough about it—I have not done enough of the homework to be sure that I want to advocate it—but I am sure that we ought to consider systematically an option that will no doubt shock a number of Opposition Members. I believe that we should consider simply getting rid of the special protection for the defence industry that exists in the single market legislation—I cannot remember which clause in the treaty contains it—and extend the single market, in the form of the public procurement directive, to defence procurement. We should make it the rule, not the exception, that when we have a defence procurement opportunity we entertain bids from countries throughout the European Union, on a reciprocal basis. Because of the legal and enforcement structures in the EU, everyone else would have to observe the same rules.
	Of course there would be certain cases in which individual British companies thought they had lost out, but I am tempted to believe, at least on a preliminary basis—I stress that I am speaking on a preliminary basis—that we would be the net gainers. We have an enormous number of very successful businesses. Some of them are niche businesses—avionics businesses, for example—and some are producing larger platforms, but we benefit from considerable expertise. I also believe that, in practice, we are always slightly more inclined than most of our continental partners to be open-minded, liberal and in favour of open markets. In practice, we have opened our defence markets where other countries have not.
	A good example in the non-war-fighting area is roll-on/roll-off ferries. Two orders for those were placed with German yards and two were placed somewhere else in the European Union, possibly in the Netherlands—I cannot remember. There was probably some agitation among Scottish colleagues of mine when that happened, but so far it has been a one-way street.
	As far as I know, no equivalent of the Defence Procurement Agency—or Defence Equipment and Support, as it is now called—or of the Ministry of Defence in any of our EU or NATO partners has placed orders for equipment for military purposes, let alone war-fighting equipment, in this country, except when no company in that country could provide the equipment. Thus there has been no competition at all in that direction, although we have engaged in some competition in procuring from the EU. That is a foolish situation in which to be—or, at least, it would be foolish of us to resist the idea of opening up the market completely, given the assurances provided by the treaty, the legislation, the European Court of Justice and the European Commission that such a change would be enforceable and that there would be a genuinely free market in defence equipment.
	Let me make my final point, in the space of one minute—

Andrew Murrison: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that our indigenous defence industry is important—as are FRES and support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan—and I notice that his signature is absent from an early-day motion 2030 tabled in the names of his hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for St. Ives (Andrew George). That motion would have the effect of imposing a windfall tax on our indigenous defence suppliers so will the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) add his name to that? If not, what conversations will he be having with his hon. Friends?

Linda Gilroy: I begin with an apology, or rather an explanation, to those on the Opposition Front Bench. It was no discourtesy that I was absent during the Opposition's opening speech, but defence debates often take place on days when the Select Committee on Defence has commitments. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) and I were attending a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) to consider an issue that strikes a particularly important chord with all Members who represent defence constituencies: the arrangements for coroners' courts and inquests following the repatriation of bodies from theatres abroad. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury, who may well speak about such matters a little later in the debate—I will leave that to him—on his diligent campaign to bring these matters to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
	When I last spoke in a defence debate, at the end of April, I concluded by saying that I looked forward to some important procurement matters moving forward in the months ahead, and indeed they have. I make no apology for concentrating on local issues, where we are experiencing a very fast pace of change.
	Locally, the MOD has agreed to Babcock's purchase of DML, which operates our local dockyard, and it has been cleared by the Competition Commission. The terms of business agreements are being cleared: the dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's on the important contract arrangements for the nuclear facility and the Trident contract—an important part of which we operate at Devonport—as well as major contracts to refurbish the Vanguard class submarines. The new owner has been broadly, if somewhat cautiously—as is our way in Plymouth—welcomed. A British company is involved, rather than the rather distant American ownership that we previously experienced. Babcock has formed Babcock Marine, the headquarters of which will be based in Plymouth. We look forward to working with the company, and we hope that, having acquired the significant additional base of Devonport, it will be able to use the new arrangements as a springboard to become a major marine defence company in the United Kingdom.
	The dockyard and the naval base activities are closely linked, and we were very pleased with the outcome of the review, which found a role for all three bases. The Minister and members of the Defence Committee are certainly familiar with the peaks and troughs of submarine maintenance work in Plymouth. The investment of £150 million in the nuclear infrastructure to meet, quite rightly, the ever more stringent safety case and to enable those involved to undertake decommissioning work on the older classes of submarine was also very welcome and certainly answered some of the great concerns that we have expressed over recent years. Nevertheless, there will still be some challenges for the new company. The base porting of ships at Devonport remains a very important issue, on which we hope to get some clarification in the near future. If there is one issue on which the Minister's clarification would be appreciated, it is that there will be no further haemorrhaging of Devonport's role as a base port for ships in service.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces visited Plymouth last week. From discussions that I and the other Plymouth MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)—had with him, I know that he is familiar with those arguments and, indeed, will meet all three of us again tomorrow to continue the discussion. From his participation in the Thursday war, I am sure that he will have seen for himself that there is far less congestion in Plymouth than there is in the busy Portsmouth facilities. Nevertheless, we have the capacity to offer significant savings to the naval base review budget, especially through the innovative land release model that is under discussion.
	In his statement on the naval base review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the hon. Member for South-West Devon that there would be no further salami slicing of naval base activities and issues. As chair of the strategy group that has been looking at the work load issues, the change in ownership and the naval base review since December 2005, I want to tell my hon. Friend the Minister how important we consider it to be to conclude the work that we began during the naval base review and to state clearly the comparative socio-economic impacts of a reduction in activities at the different naval bases on the savings that will need to be made.
	Before leaving local issues, I want to mention two matters to do with filling those important troughs and helping us to maintain the skills base at Devonport. First, the recent £30 million work package for HMS Ocean is certainly welcome, although of course we look forward to more of the allocated non-competitive work load coming our way. We have also become used to filling those troughs with luxury yacht work. I think that a keel was laid at Appledore in north Devon only yesterday morning—something that will be very welcome to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey)—and rail rolling stock is also being refurbished.
	We were all a little taken aback in Plymouth recently by the £30 million contract to build new military vehicles, which my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in his opening speech. That will take a little bit of getting used to in Plymouth, which has been so strongly identified as a naval port for many years, but we hope that it heralds further contracts coming Devonport's way from that very big—I think that it is worth £16 billion—programme of FRES vehicles, albeit perhaps not all of it. That would be a little greedy, but if we can perform with the skill for which the Devonport work force are so well known and deliver value for money, on time and to the right quality, Plymouth might well become known for that in future years—as well as for its very strong association with naval matters.
	In the last defence debate, I spoke about increased investment in Defence Estates and single living accommodation, including Project Armada in Devonport, and improvements to service family properties. Since then, the Defence Committee has produced a report on the issue, and as part of our ongoing work we will look closely at the Government's response to the serious issues about the pace of change that we raised in our report. The investment announced in the Chancellor's statement earlier today is very welcome, but it is clear from our report that change and investment are greatly needed if we are to achieve the standard of accommodation that we would wish for all our service families within the foreseeable future.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned helicopters. The new Merlins were mentioned in a recent press report, and we were told earlier this year that they would be available within a year. Lord Drayson visited those involved with the helicopters, which we hope will soon be available. As other hon. Members said, we need to make much more progress on helicopters.
	I am sure that progress at strategic level will form a significant part of the Defence Committee's ongoing work in the current and forthcoming Sessions. We will consider the lessons of the urgent operational requirements, particularly in respect of the defence industrial strategy. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) expressed concern about whether the priorities were being configured correctly. I am not sure how welcome he would have found the remarks that the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, made in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute in September. The key points that he attempted to lay before us, which will no doubt preoccupy us as we approach the forthcoming defence industrial strategy, is that basic equipment procurement has suffered as the UK has focused on the acquisition of advanced technologies, and that, as we heard in the Minister's opening remarks, the urgent operational requirements process, on which we now spend £2 billion, has been instrumental in developing forces and their equipment.
	General Sir Richard Dannatt made some very strong points in that speech, which I commend to all Members who follow defence issues closely and who have not yet picked up on it. It is in the very good briefing that the Library produced for this debate. He would like us to spend more money on getting things right at the very lowest levels. He talked at considerable length about the great improvements that have been made, and not only in respect of the Mastiff vehicles. He particularly referred to the role of dismounted close-combat units. He compared the infantry unit of two years ago to one of today, and said that people
	"would be surprised at the difference between personal equipment, weapons vehicles and overall capability".
	We must be careful, in our comments about deficiencies—which, no doubt, are there—to bear it in mind that things are changing very fast, particularly with the significant investment that is being made in urgent operational requirements in response to what people on the ground find necessary.
	We are experiencing continuous change in the culture of researching and developing new equipment, but there are also ongoing, major procurement changes to the partnership between industry and Government. The Select Committee will shortly return to consider the progress that has been made since the first defence industrial strategy, which of our recommendations have been taken up, the need to invest substantially in research and development if we are to keep ahead and are to be in the right place in 20 years' time, and the issue of the small and medium-sized enterprises that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned. I notice that Christianne Tipping of the Royal United Services Institute, who comments on such matters, says that she is unsure whether that issue is being followed up in the way that we on the Defence Committee would expect, and that the second defence industrial strategy might well suggest that that role needs to be formalised.
	To conclude, I should like to say how much we welcome the work that Lord Drayson has done, and to welcome, as others have, the fact that he is still in post. Decisions are still being made, not only about up-front acquisition costs but about through-life cost, and that is one of the most difficult areas of defence procurement to take on. It has been said that it will take a brave individual to follow that through to its conclusion, but I hope that we on the Defence Committee can support those who are trying to do that.

Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I hope that she will regard it as a significant compliment when I say that the way in which she represents her constituents' case reminds me very much of our late colleague Rachel Squire, who represented another port. I see that her successor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is here— [Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie); he is testament to the electoral benefits that can come about when the Prime Minister assists one's opponent in an electoral campaign. That, I think, was at the time when the hon. Gentleman's party was formally leaderless.
	The debate is extremely timely for me; the battlegroup of my old regiment, the Light Dragoons, has just returned from Afghanistan. I will briefly speak about it, and my remarks on procurement will focus first on the equipment that it currently uses, and then on the equipment that it is supposed to have at some time in the future, which will be drawn from FRES—the future rapid effect system programme.
	I served in the Army for nearly 12 years, and it is humbling for me to talk to colleagues who remained in the Army. I served between 1979 and 1990. The wounds that I got were nearly always the result of being on the wrong end of a cricket ball; it was a rather different age from the one that my former colleagues are now living through in the Army. Indeed, I had to become a special adviser, and then a politician, to find people firing in my general direction. It is humbling to talk to my former colleagues, given what they have just gone through in six months.
	I want to place on record my tribute to Lieutenant-Colonel Angus Watson, who has just brought the Light Dragoons battlegroup back. One of its squadrons, B Squadron, has just over 24 hours left in theatre on operations before it comes back. So far, the Light Dragoons have managed to get through without sustaining a fatality. That in itself is a great achievement. As I have family in the United States army who are serving in Baghdad and in Afghanistan, I know about the thoughts and prayers of everyone who is waiting for their loved ones to come home, and about the anxiety that families go through when their loved ones are deployed on operations. Tragically, Colonel Watson's battle group had six fatalities among members of the other sub-units that were part of his battle group. That is part of the pattern of operations, and it shows the intensity of the operations that we are now dealing with in Afghanistan.
	We should reflect on the quite remarkable achievements of our young men and women on operations; in the case of the Light Dragoons, we are talking about young men. The Playstation generation is doing our country proud. They are 18, 19 and 20-year-old young men, and the calm, unassuming and humane way in which they have conducted themselves while on operations in Afghanistan is a great tribute to them—a tribute that belies their age, and the expectations that even their parents had when their sons went into training with the Army. It is a remarkable achievement. In six months, B Squadron of the Light Dragoons has had 40 contacts with the enemy, and they range from 30 minutes to seven hours in contact with the enemy, including a full replenishment of ammunition in contact. One or two of my hon. Friends who have served in the Army, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), will have some idea of what that means. What we have expected of them is remarkable.
	I am delighted that Breckland district council decided, before the request came from the chief of general staff, to invite the Light Dragoons to parade in a month's time. That small gesture from a local authority means a great deal to the regiments coming home; it shows that their contribution has been recognised.
	We should not confuse our admiration for the magnificent way in which our young soldiers are carrying out their duties with a consideration of the wider merits of their task. It remains our duty constantly to assess whether the task that they are doing collectively on behalf of the United Kingdom serves British interests, and wider western liberal democratic national interests. That is a matter that we must constantly keep under review, and we should never confuse the fact that our soldiers are performing magnificently with the fact that what they are being asked to do might not be wholly helpful to our wider objectives.
	Let me turn my attention to how the CVRT—combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—has done on operations. I recall that when I joined the Army 27 years ago, the vehicles were six or seven years old. They were deployed in the primary role of the British Army of the Rhine, which was there to face our principal threat: invasion of Germany by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries. In a subsidiary role in Cyprus, where I was posted for six months, we had the delight of travelling around in Ferret scout cars and Saladin armoured cars, and those vehicles were laughably old. There were way older than anyone who was invited to crew them. They were products of the 1950s, but in a sense that did not matter, because that was a subsidiary role for the British Army; the principal question was where the new equipment ought to be.
	Today the CVRT is 34 years old, and it is deployed on our principal operational requirements in Afghanistan. It has undergone a number of updates. In 1990s, when we acquired the Challenger 2 tank, we were in a ludicrous position. The reconnaissance at the front could not keep up with the armour that was supposed to follow it up, so there was a mid-life update of the CVRT, which resulted in a new diesel engine, suspension and power traverse. I am pleased to say that the urgent operational requirements that became apparent in the Balkans following the tragic loss of Lieutenant Richard Madden—his vehicle hit a mine in Bosnia—have resulted in mine blast protection that has saved the lives of at least two vehicle commanders whose vehicles hit mines in the past six months in Afghanistan. We cannot escape the fact that that the CVRT is 34 years old. It is the love and care of the soldiers who man it that sustain it and keep it in the field.

Willie Rennie: The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) deserves a return of the compliment, but I must correct him on one matter. I am represent Dunfermline, west, not Dunfermline, east, but I can assure him and hon. Members on the Labour Benches that Dunfermline, east is on our target list. We are confident that the Prime Minister will be looking for a new job in the near future.
	I am disappointed by the poor turnout for the debate, especially by those who usually barrack me from behind—Members from the Scottish National party. It is a serious matter that those who claim that they can run my country cannot even be bothered to turn up, and that they treat the topic of defence in such a casual manner. It is important that the message goes out to the people of Scotland that the SNP is not a serious party and is not interested in the defence of our country.
	I welcome the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is now absent from his place. He has already been before the Defence Committee, and he was quite a contrast with his predecessor, who is rather like a Scottish terrier. The new Minister is entertaining and authoritative in his approach, and I welcome him to the Front Bench.
	One week before I participated in a visit to Iraq earlier this year, a young man from my constituency passed away serving his country in Iraq. When I returned, I attended his funeral. The fact that a young man could pass away at the age of 21 serving his country brings home to all Members the importance of our job and the seriousness with which we should take defence matters.
	I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of a reduction in force levels in Iraq to 2,500 by next spring. That will give relief to our hard-pressed forces. However, I have concerns about the force protection for such a number. We have been advised that a much larger number is required. I would appreciate more information from the MOD about its figures on force protection.
	The logical consequence of withdrawing from Basra palace is that we should withdraw from south-east Iraq altogether because, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it was only once we withdrew from Basra palace that the situation became calm. We were part of the problem, not part of the solution. The logical conclusion is that we should withdraw from Iraq altogether, which is the position that the Liberal Democrats set out earlier this year. We were ridiculed for it, but the Government now seem to be following that advice. I hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will reconsider that position.
	Earlier this year, with a dramatic backdrop in Plymouth, the former Prime Minister set out a new vision for the defence of our country. He rightly praised the commitment of our armed forces and sought to differentiate between hard and soft power. He said that the UK had to play an active role in world security. Finally, he said that that
	"will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our armed forces".
	He went on to say that we had to be
	"willing to fight terrorism and pay the cost of that fight wherever it may be".
	I am not sure that the 1.5 per cent. increase in real terms meets that commitment.

Robert Key: No, I shall not give way at this stage.
	We may no longer be quite so concerned with the Spratleys in the South China sea, and perhaps we should turn our attention more to the north-west passage and the implications for trade routes between China, Japan and Europe via the north of Canada resulting from climate change, and the international tensions that are building over that situation. However, we are talking about things that touch the lives of every citizen every day, but they do not realise it.
	There are 16 or 17 Members of Parliament present for this debate, because the Whips have decided that there is not much legislative business and, as usual, have popped in a defence debate. I am very grateful to them for allowing us to have such a debate—it does not happen very often—but the House should be packed on such an occasion and it is not. Whether we are talking about importing fair trade bananas from the Windward islands, fridges from China, television sets from Taiwan or cars from Japan, we are talking about the need for a global reach to defend our trade, our standing of living, our quality of life, our influence in the world and the British national interest. That is what is at stake, which is why we still need to procure such very expensive systems. It is why we shall continue for a long time—indeed, for ever—to need an Army, a Navy and an Air Force. There is much loose talk around to the effect that we will not need an Air Force when we have unmanned aerial vehicles. We will. We shall need expertise to operate those platforms whether they are manned or not, and we shall need the Navy because we must have global reach to protect our British interests and our alliances around the world.
	We will need an Army, of course, to help in the defence of the homeland, but also to ensure that we can project our standards of life, our morality and our ethical stance in the world, and so that we can look after humanitarian aid and carry out peace enforcement and peacekeeping as well as high-intensity warfare when the need arises. If we can explain that to the taxpayer—indeed, if we could explain it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow Chancellor and the 620 Members of Parliament who are not here—the defence budget might rise up the political agenda, and more people might share my view that, over a 10-year period, we should in the national interest double the defence budget.
	The usual suspects from all parities are debating, with great expertise, the need to hold the Government to account on the issue of particular procurement programmes, but that misses the main point: in a democracy such as ours—an international country—that is at the cutting edge of military capability, we still need to persuade the taxpayer that procurement matters. For people to go to Tesco, the Navy, Army and the Air Force must ensure that all the products can get there and be safe once they do so. It is as simple as that. However, we do not make that effort.
	The Defence Committee has spent six months going to all the major NATO countries—it is off to Georgia and Turkey next week—and they all say that the public are not prepared to pay. The American public are prepared. The British public pay for more than anyone else in Europe, but other nations apparently do not think that that is important. It is important, and we need to convince the taxpayer of that, not by obscure arguments about whether one version of FRES is better than another or about who will win the contract for the next big order, but in relation to where the national, personal and family interests lie in having the best equipment and the best conditions for armed services personnel. If we can argue the case in such a way, the British taxpayer will realise its relevance, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the shadow Chancellor might agree that we should double the defence budget over a 10-year period.

Douglas Carswell: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who spoke so eloquently. He dwelt on slightly bigger themes, and I shall try to make various points in a similar vein.
	The UK spends £32 billion a year on defence— 2.5 per cent. of our GDP. That might be half the proportion of the mid-1980s, but in gross terms it is the fifth highest such spend in the world. It should be enough to maintain a substantial force, but we struggle. Our defence procurement system is not good at turning tax pounds into the equipment our armed forces need. Bluntly, the UK's defence procurement budget is spent more in the interests of a few privileged defence contractors than it is in the interests of our armed forces. An ineffective Ministry of Defence pays wildly high prices for kit that it suits the contractor to provide. The MOD pays double, or even triple the price, for what are often inferior products. I could talk at length about the catalogue of incompetence, but I shall confine my comments to helicopter procurement.
	Sensibly, a decision was made to buy Apache helicopters, which are a good piece of American kit. However, in order to preserve jobs, or perhaps award large contracts to privileged suppliers, it was decided to assemble them in the UK. The cost of that protectionism has been vast, and is still being paid in Afghanistan today. Our UK-assembled Apaches cost approximately £40 million each—three times what the Israelis paid for theirs. Worse, by not buying directly off the shelf, we have ensured that only a handful of Apaches can serve in Helmand. Parts from the unused fleet in the west country are being cannibalised to keep our few Apaches in Helmand airborne. If we had bought directly from Boeing, we would have more Apaches—more of those decisive, battle-winning weapons—in Afghanistan.
	I say to those who perceive defence procurement as an exercise in job creation rather than war winning that, if we had bought directly from Boeing, we could have given the 755 employees of Augusta £1 million each and still saved £1 billion. As a job preservation scheme, such protectionism was ludicrous.
	Protectionism also explains why our armed forces do not have enough transport helicopters. The Ministry of Defence placed a £1 billion order for the new Lynx at £14 million each. The problem is that they will not be ready for several years. When I was at the air base in Kandahar, I saw an ancient, grounded Lynx, which the new Lynx is supposed to replace. It was designed for the cold war and is simply not operating in Afghanistan as it should. Next to it, I saw row after row of unused United States Black Hawks. They would cost only £6 million each and could be available in months if only we were not so protectionist. Thanks to the Ministry of Defence, we spend twice as much on buying an inferior helicopter, which will not be available for years, from an Italian company. Similar points could be made about Merlin and the Chinook.
	Not only the taxpayer pays the price for that decision. In Iraq and Afghanistan, helicopters save lives. Every helicopter means fewer road journeys, fewer targets for improvised explosive devices, fewer bombed and broken troop carriers and fewer casualties. We pay a high price for the protectionist defence procurement policy.
	Thanks to our relationship with Finmeccanica, we do not have enough helicopters. When Brigadier Ed Butler arrived back from Afghanistan, he was asked what piece of equipment he most needed. "Helicopters", he said. I do not recall his specifying that they had to be built by Finmeccanica.
	The defence industrial strategy claims to be about providing the armed forces with the equipment that they require on time, and at best value for money for the taxpayer, but saying it does not make it so. The defence industrial strategy is based on the flawed premise that we need sovereignty of supply. That is lobbyist speak for, "The defence procurement budget must go to a privileged few." Sovereignty of supply is a superficially attractive argument, but it is idiotic, not patriotic.
	The premise is flawed because one simply cannot buy an exclusively British jet fighter, helicopter or missile; such equipment is too sophisticated. Sovereignty of supply is an argument for protectionism. One might as well argue that the UK needs self-sufficiency in food production. Doubtless it could be done with a massive protectionist effort. Doubtless a case could be made that, if we did not become self-sufficient, we could be starved out. However, most people recognise that that does not wash. For centuries, we have imported food—and provisions for our armed forces.
	In what sense are the privileged few companies from which we are obliged to buy our defence kit British? Is Finmeccanica, maker of the new Lynx, British? Now that BAE has sold off Airbus, in what sense does awarding Airbus the £2.5 billion contract to deliver the A400M transport planes preserve British jobs? With so many contracts outside the UK, why continue to treat BAE as a British company?
	The sovereignty of supply argument is about preserving the privileged status of a tiny handful of defence contractors. The defence industrial strategy is about maintaining a guarantee that some contractors will have a permanent income stream from British taxpayers. It is no surprise that the biggest supporter of the defence industrial strategy is BAE.
	Protectionism and the defence industrial strategy are wrong not because other companies cannot get a fair crack at supplying business but because our armed forces do not get the equipment that they need when they need it. It is not patriotic, but idiotic.
	The farce continues because there is no effective accountability for defence procurement. As an aspect of public policy, it is no longer settled by those whom we can elect at the ballot box. Regardless of which Member of Parliament is the departmental mouthpiece, the defence contractors get the contracts that they want and our armed forces do not get the kit that they need. Civil servants escape censure for monumental inefficiencies; the Member of Parliament who happens to serve as the departmental mouthpiece loyally and faithfully recites the line that Sir Humphrey gives him. Remote officials make the decisions and our armed forces take the rap. No one is accountable and no one is sacked. That is how our defence procurement works today.
	I have tried tabling parliamentary questions about the Ministry of Defence's appalling decisions in the interests of what I believe to be a few select contractors. Sir Humphrey has cited commercial confidentiality to avoid revealing the truth. I know from first-hand conversations with officials that the competitive procurement process for the new Lynx took place in name only. The process was made to fit the outcome. Yet, unlike our armed forces in Afghanistan, senior officials in the Ministry of Defence can simply avoid the consequences of the appalling failure.
	In the House, it has become the Table Office's default setting to refuse to accept questions about BAE and its Saudi dealings, despite the existence of sufficient evidence to warrant such legitimate questions.
	While Members of the legislature are no longer able to hold the Executive to account, a sophisticated lobbying exercise aims at shutting down the debate. How many Members of Parliament who, like me, have taken part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme know that it is funded by the same contractors as the defence industrial strategy privileges? I suspect that the answer is not many, because the armed forces parliamentary scheme refuses to open the books.
	I raised the subject of defence contracts and procurement after my visit to Afghanistan and I was directly pressurised by the organisers of the armed forces parliamentary scheme for asking such questions. Without accountability, the defence industrial strategy will remain unchallenged. Its retention will maintain the near monopoly of BAE and a handful of others. As long as BAE remains the monopoly supplier, we will not get value for money. For all the management consultant speak about smart procurement and through-life contracts, basic economic literacy shows that, in defence as elsewhere, a near monopoly provider means that the buyer gets a poor deal. When there is a constraint on supply, the seller sets the terms of trade.
	Recently, BAE was handed another £124 million contract to build an unmanned aerial vehicle that we should have bought off the shelf. If one is in Helmand and one needs a UAV that works, one does not care where it is built.
	We do not merely need to buy off the shelf; we need to break the monopoly of the few suppliers. If we did that, we might buy the kit that we need instead of waiting until BAE is ready to supply what it is willing to provide. We might supply our armed forces with the best kit available. If we did that, we might well have less outmoded kit—fewer anti-Soviet tanks, less submarine-hunting kit, fewer Eurofighters to defend the skies over the north German plain, fewer old-style frigates ready to take on the communist navy in the north Atlantic—and more of the kit that our armed forces need to fight the wars to which we send them.
	Finally, I salute Lewis Page, the author and journalist, who has grasped what so few Labour Members have understood.

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), whose thoughts and forthright contribution to the debate will doubtless have been heard on the Treasury Bench and in the Civil Service Box.
	Before reaching the main body of my remarks, I want to comment on a theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) raised in a passionate speech, and put on record my admiration for so many units of our armed forces that have performed so magnificently in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to pay special tribute to the 4 Rifles Battle Group and Colonel Patrick Sanders, its commanding officer, who gave one of the most moving eulogies on youth when he spoke of the courage and valour that young men and women are showing in theatres today. Many people outside the House do not fully grasp that those people are every bit as brave and courageous as their grandparents and great grandparents were. We should be proud of that, and it is a theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) developed.
	I hope that the Minister will take on board the point that my hon. Friend made about the sometimes leaden approach of the Ministry of Defence, particularly by those responsible for the media unit, who sometimes sing a very different tune from, for example, the one that the Minister sang in his welcome words of support for Help for Heroes, a charity of which I shall be honoured to be a trustee. I hope that the Minister will convey his view to those who are sometimes obstructive. I speak from personal experience, as someone who successfully managed to arrange a day out at Newbury races for wounded armed servicemen. I came up against the media unit at the Ministry of Defence and, frankly, I found it pretty obstructive. The unit let the servicemen go, but it was no mean battle.
	I also pay tribute to the mayor of Newbury, who is an excellent man. He has taken up Sir Richard Dannatt's invitation to pay tribute to our local regiment, the Royal Engineers, by giving a reception. His attitude contrasts with that of the leader of Newbury town council, who said that he wanted nothing to do with the occasion because he did not support the war in Iraq. I cannot condemn enough the failure to make the not-too-intellectual leap of separating whatever one might think about our deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and paying tribute to our armed forces. I hope that the views of the leader of Newbury town council will be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
	The main theme of my speech was also touched upon by my hon. Friend—the extraordinary decision to axe the Defence Export Services Organisation. One of the great success stories in the past 40 years has been the joint working between Government and industry to co-ordinate and support our defence exports. DESO is a child of Labour. It was created by Denis Healey in 1966 and is the envy of the world. It has contributed to our being second to the United States in defence exports. We have to ask not only why the decision was taken, but why it was done in such a cack-handed and arbitrary fashion.
	We know that the decision was taken by the Prime Minister. He produced a statement to Parliament on the day Parliament rose for the summer recess. I have a minute from the DESO team briefing on 29 August, at which the second permanent under-secretary said:
	"The Prime Minister's decision had been unexpected".
	I should say so, when I can show clearly the level of unpreparedness across government, as they sought to cope with a decision that was kept so close to the Prime Minister's inner circle. What consultation took place across the Government when the decision was taken? Was the Secretary of State informed? Was Lord Drayson informed? Was Lord Jones informed—the former Digby Jones, who as the Minister responsible for UK Trade and Investment will, we are led to believe, take responsibility for whatever emerges from the debacle? He has been quoted in the industry press as saying that the decision was bonkers. He needs to convey that clearly to the Prime Minister.
	DESO employs—or did—around 250 people. In defence terms, it costs a paltry £16 million a year and supports and co-ordinates exports worth £500 million to our balance of payments. DESO is the envy of the world and is being copied by countries that want to emulate our success in defence exports. It is worth looking briefly at what exactly happened. The night before the statement was presented to Parliament and the staff at DESO were informed, the permanent under-secretary was summoned to No. 10 Downing street, where the Prime Minister informed him that the decision had been made to axe DESO. The permanent under-secretary informed the outgoing director of DESO, who got the staff together the next morning so that the permanent under-secretary could tell them the bad news. The director of DESO then said the memorable words—I might not be quoting him exactly—"Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think it's time that you went and started looking for jobs". Many of them have: I am told that more than 30—the brightest and the best—have already been employed by companies up and down the country.
	Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence produced an internal question and answer sheet for employees about what the arrangements will be. The answer to the question,
	"Will staff be forced to transfer with their posts to UKTI?"
	was:
	"How UKTI will manage their responsibility for defence trade promotion remains to be decided."
	The answer to
	"Where will the transferred staff be located...?"
	was:
	"To be decided."
	The answer to
	"Where will those who remain in MoD go to, and where will they be located...?"
	was that
	"this will have to be worked out in the implementation planning phase."
	Finally, the answer to
	"Will staff transfer to UKTI on the same terms and conditions as they have now?"
	was, again, that that will have to be
	"worked out during the implementation planning phase."
	So, nobody knows how many people are going to be transferred to the new arrangement, where they will work, under what terms and conditions they will be working or what they will be doing.
	Most importantly—I hope that the Minister really grasps this—the answer to the question,
	"Will there continue to be a role for the military staff?"
	was:
	"To be decided."
	The answer to
	"What will happen to the (Army) Export Support Team?"
	was:
	"Again, to be decided."
	The answer to
	"What will happen to the DESO First Secretaries overseas...?"
	was:
	"To be decided."
	The replies to all those questions show a disgraceful unpreparedness across Government for how an important part of our economy and hundreds and thousands of jobs in this country could be affected.
	Many companies in our constituencies are affected—I am not just talking about the big ones such as BAE Systems, but small companies that might have to go abroad to an area that they do not know. The first port of call for such companies will be the mission, where they will find the DESO representative. He will say to them, "Right, this is the environment you need to be aware of, these are the people you need to talk to, this is how we do business in this country." The customers out there will want to know that those companies have the imprimatur of the Government. In particular, they will want to see uniformed service personnel involved in the negotiations for contracts, yet we do not even know what is going to happen to those uniformed personnel.
	It is also worth considering what the effect has been in the industry. I have a letter to the Prime Minister from Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE Systems, in which he expresses his great disappointment about
	"the complete lack of consultation with the industry stakeholders."
	In a telling remark, he continues:
	"I can think of no benefit that 'synergy' with UK T and I can offer that can begin to outweigh the lost excellence of the DESO operation."
	The chief executive of Thales wrote:
	"The link that DESO has provided, both in practical terms and symbolically, with MoD and the Armed Forces has been an important part of the defence side of that export success story."
	It is now gone—finished.
	The most telling letter to come into my hands was from the high commissioner to Australia—someone well known to this Government—Mrs. Helen Liddell. In her letter to Lord Jones—Digby Jones—she clearly sets out the value of the operation run from the missions and how it works in countries that purchase defence goods from Britain. She says:
	"It takes a particular level of experience and knowledge to discuss in detail the kind of kit we sell with men and women who are likely to be commanders in the field. To be blunt, what Australia buys is a relationship".
	I believe that this Prime Minister has put that relationship in jeopardy. Mrs. Liddell finishes her letter by saying:
	"Incidentally, Australia is currently setting up their own version of DESO, and we hear that France is likely to go the same way!"
	We need to see the replies to those letters, from the Prime Minister and from Lord Jones, and the replies need to be public documents because they relate directly to the decision that the Prime Minister took.
	Why did the Prime Minister take that decision? Was it to appease a group of MPs for whom defence exports are an evil? I would love to have the time to debate that issue with them here and now, but I do not. One of the rumours going round Whitehall is that it was to appease an individual or a group of individuals in his inner circle. I would suggest, however, that this was a typical new Labour cock-up: there are a few negatives out there, BAE Systems and the al-Yamamah project—what shall we do? We should do something dramatic, then we can park it. If anyone raises defence exports, we can say, "Look, this is what we've done." Of course, al-Yamamah and anything else to do with Saudi Arabia is dealt with by the MOD Saudi Arabia project; it has nothing to do with DESO. But that does not matter; it is on the spin grid, and the Government have something that they can say.
	Then the Government had to row back, and to create a new environment with UK Trade and Investment. We are losing expertise from DESO and losing respect from customers elsewhere in the world. There are questions that need to be answered. Which Ministers were informed of this decision, and when? Why was there no consultation with the industry? Why was there no preparedness across Government on this important issue? The replies to those questions should be put in the public domain.
	I shall conclude by quoting  Jane's Defence Weekly of 15 August. The very cutting article entitled "UK could pay a high price for cost cutting" stated that
	"it is a bad decision and one that will...severely damage the UK and particularly the one remaining export-led industry where the nation can be considered an international leader and hold its head high. One thing is for certain: the Australian, French, German, Israeli, Russian and US governments that are seeking to emulate DESO's success will be delighted by the Brown announcement."
	I could not have put it better myself.

Ian Davidson: I thank the hon. Gentleman; if I am looking for speakers to support me I might consider inviting him—although, given the Conservatives' record in Scotland, I might hold back from doing so. However, I take his comments in the spirit in which he intended them.
	We will have a robust discussion in Scotland about whether the Scottish nationalist-led Scottish Executive are prepared to put the necessary money into training to ensure that industries such as defence, which depends on the UK Government for its orders, is adequately staffed and provided for. That will be one of the most important political debates in Scotland over the next year or so, and I intend to participate in it. I have done all that I can to ensure that my constituents are aware that the placing of the orders for the aircraft carriers has come about as a result of Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom. My constituents are under no illusions. If there were an independent Scottish navy, it would not be ordering two aircraft carriers on its own.
	Let me return to the thrust of my remarks. The MOD has been working constructively and positively with the shipbuilding industry to try to provide a degree of forward planning to ensure that we avoid the peaks and troughs of demand that have caused such havoc in the lives of many of that industry's work force, who have had to be repeatedly laid off and then rehired. When skilled staff in industries such as shipbuilding get laid off, many of them find other jobs and never return. We cannot simply turn such a labour force on and off like a tap.
	Given that context, I particularly welcome the Government's commitment in principle that the peaks and troughs in the shipbuilding orders for the frigates and aircraft carriers will be evened out by sequencing the placement of the MARS programme—the military afloat reach and sustainability fleet tanker programme—and making sure that it meshes in. I was therefore extremely concerned when representatives of the industry informed me that the MARS commercial manager recently wrote to a number of suppliers suggesting that it was the Government's intention that the fleet tanker programme should be progressed under the EC public procurement regulations. If that were to happen, and if the competition for the fleet tankers were to be open to European companies, it would presumably go to the lowest bidder, and therefore the opportunity that we have to adjust the timing of the flow of work through the shipyards to take account of peaks and troughs would be lost. We ought at the very least to delay that until the forthcoming MARS industry day has taken place on 24 October.
	In the longer term, we should delay the programme until such time as we are able to ascertain exactly what the shipyards' flow of work under the aircraft carrier order will be. As I understand it, simply to issue an advert for the procurement process through the  Official Journal of the European Union would commit us to that process at an early stage. We would not then be able to claw it back.
	I hope that the Minister can clarify an issue for me in this debate, or subsequently by letter; I am not clear about it at the moment. Does the requirement to conduct the programme under EC regulations stem from an assessment by the Ministry of Defence that the vessels are outside the scope of war-like equipments that can be exempted from the EU procurement process under article 296 of the treaties that established the European Union?
	In the past, we have argued that, in some circumstances, vessels should be designated "grey ships" and therefore not have to go down the open procurement route. Given what the specification for the ships is likely to be, it is my view that they clearly fall under that exemption and that the MOD is therefore not required to go for open procurement. As I understand it, the range of military capabilities and standards detailed in article 296 is substantial. There is a classification against Lloyd's register naval ship rules, rather than merchant ship rules. There is a specification about naval helicopter operating, support and maintenance facilities and one in respect of secure military communications systems, which will be in the contract. There will also have to be naval-replenishment-at-sea equipment, and firefighting and security arrangements that exceed merchant navy practice. Similarly, there will have to be manoeuvring, stability and sea-keeping requirements in excess of merchant standards.
	All that makes me believe that it is not necessary for the MOD to go to European open procurement. Also involved will be the ability to transit out of nuclear, biological and chemical contamination areas, having survivability, vulnerability and shock standards in excess of commercial standards and having operating patterns with warships. Such patterns would inevitably put the vessels in harm's way.
	In such circumstances, how can the MOD say that those are not military ships and are eligible to be put out for open procurement? I want the Minister to be clear about whether the MOD has thought through what the consequences of such open ordering might be. If the prime contract were won by a foreign supplier, it is entirely likely that that supplier would use its own supply chain. That would cut directly across the MOD programme to develop British supply chains in shipbuilding and elsewhere. I find it difficult to believe that the MOD would draw up a specification that gave the prime contracting role to a foreign supplier, yet not allow that supplier to choose its own sub-suppliers. If the supply chain were dictated from the United Kingdom, that would be a recipe for chaos, with a different prime supplier not using its normal supply routes. I hope that the Ministry of Defence and the Minister will consider the whole issue again.
	Finally, on behalf of the trade union movement in the yards of my constituency and elsewhere, I pay tribute to the excellent work that Lord Drayson has done. He has established a relationship with the trade unions far better than those of many of his predecessors, largely because he has been consistently open and straightforward with them. They genuinely believe that they can trust him; it has to be said that they are not always happy with what he tells them, but they have always accepted that he is simply giving it to them straight. Similarly, I have found him to be somebody with whom it is a pleasure to deal. As many Members know, when it comes to reform of the House of Lords, I am in favour of the "one Lord, one lamp post" solution. However, I want it made clear that that would not all happen simultaneously and would be done in tranches. Lord Drayson would certainly be towards the end of that queue.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give me satisfaction on the points that I have made, if not today, then subsequently in writing.

Gerald Howarth: I will, as this may an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to save his seat by putting some clear blue water between himself and me.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing an explanation that was not forthcoming hitherto. Obviously, all of us face enormous calls on our time, and there are always competing claims, but this Prime Minister has said that the House of Commons is the top priority, and it is disappointing that the Secretary of State was not able to be here.
	The time available to me is rather longer than I had anticipated—and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will chastise me if I stray—but I shall run through some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that the procurement programme was likely to move to the right, and I think that he was correct to do so. He also made common cause with my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State that greater transparency for Parliament would improve the quality of scrutiny. That theme was evident throughout the debate, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board and see what more can be done to provide the House with greater insight into what goes on—although I am conscious that the National Audit Office and the Defence Select Committee perform a valuable function for all Members of the House, irrespective of party.
	The hon. Member for North Devon also referred to the need for a defence review. I hope that he has read that it is part of our programme that we would hold such a review every five years. The way in which the situation around the world has changed makes holding a regular review of our defence posture something that the House should consider very seriously. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will also be calling it to the attention of our friends and colleagues that the Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on the defence companies. I am sure that they will be interested to hear about that policy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made one of his characteristically spirited contributions, for which I am the first to salute him. I have served as his deputy in the House, and he is a wonderful man to work for. No one has the interests of the armed services closer to his heart than he—and, my goodness, this House knows that he has a very big heart. He made a number of very good points, especially about the under-reporting of the positive achievements of our armed forces on operations. Something that is gaining common ground on both sides of the Chamber is that members of the armed forces often complain, when we visit them in theatre, that the media do not report the positive things that they are doing. They want to know why that happens, and they will say so even when the media are there with them. The media need to look to their own responsibilities not only to the wider British public but to the armed forces themselves.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, like several of my hon. Friends, mentioned the Defence Export Services Organisation. I thought that his description of scrapping it as "bovine stupidity, engineered by some communist woman at the Treasury" was wonderfully politically incorrect, and I endorse it. It was magnificent, and typical of his robust language. I shall come back to DESO in a moment.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is a doughty advocate for aerospace in his constituency—not exclusively for BAE Systems, but it has its military aircraft headquarters in his constituency. It is an extremely critical component in Britain's defence capability, and we should pay tribute to it. We should pay tribute to all Britain's defence companies, whether large or small, for the incredible job that they do. We are a small country. We are a fifth of the size of the United States yet, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we are the second largest exporter of defence equipment in the world. We owe that to the professionalism and innovation of our scientists and engineers. Far from decrying them, I pay them the warmest possible tribute. We should acknowledge that not only do they respond swiftly and agilely to demands for upgrading of equipment in theatre, but they have people pretty near the front line, and we should pay tribute to them for that.
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of unmanned aerial vehicles. Work is going on at Wharton, some of which I have seen. It is an extremely interesting area of development which we should encourage and in which Britain has a world-class leading role to play. I strongly support my right hon. Friend when he says that the United Kingdom must continue to be at the forefront of technology. That is something on which we are in accord with the Government, especially with the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, who has made the point that we will not be a sovereign nation if we cannot autonomously operate our own kit—a point to which I shall come back later.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) is a doughty campaigner for her constituency. We all share her delight that the naval base review rightly decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said at the outset, that there was no case for the closure of any base. I am delighted that that has happened. The Supacat vehicle, which is a superb vehicle, was on display at the defence systems and equipment international exhibition. It is made by an excellent company called Supacat down in Devon. Its managing director is my secretary's nephew and I have visited it a couple of times. I give it a plug because it is a jolly good company. It is a small British company doing a splendid job, and it is not just the big boys that we need to be concerned about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), in a feisty speech, paid tribute to his regiment, the Light Dragoons. I have to say that he was slightly modest. I have no doubt that if he were serving today, he would display every bit as much courage and determination as those who are currently serving in the uniform that he was once proud to wear. He has indeed demonstrated some extraordinary politically courageous skills, which perhaps I will not go into any further today, save to say that his military career and bearing have provided the House with some valuable expertise.
	My hon. Friend was right about the CVRT, although it has been upgraded. The upgrade is an interesting one. I have seen it for myself. It illustrates the point that we have to build new equipment that will be in service for a long time and therefore requires the ability right from the outset to be upgraded and adapted for the different conditions that we face today.
	My hon. Friend drew attention to the disgraceful delay in the future rapid effect system programme. He drew attention to the fact that General Sir Mike Jackson had said that it had to be in service by 2009 and is now not likely to be in service until we do not know when. He drew attention to the fascinating exchange in the Defence Committee between the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and Sir Peter Spencer. Of course, that exchange led to the decision by the Ministry of Defence to remove any requirement on the part of the Government to give in-service dates. Of course, that exchange led to the decision by the MOD to remove altogether any requirement on the part of the Government to give in-service dates, largely because they were completely incapable of meeting in-services dates. So it was better not to tell the House of Commons or the public the likely in-service dates, otherwise they might have to meet them.

Gerald Howarth: No, emphatically not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) suggested in his slightly idiosyncratic and sometimes slightly bizarre contribution that the whole thing was a conspiracy by a number of defence companies. He probably thinks that I have sold my soul to them, but I represent Farnborough, where the headquarters of BAE Systems is based, and although Lady Thatcher used to say to me, "I hope BAE is still paying you", I have never received a penny piece from BAE in my life.
	My hon. Friend did himself something of a disservice in suggesting that those of us who believe passionately in a strong British defence industry are somehow in hock to those companies, for that was the general purport of what he said, although he had some positive points to make. It is important to BAE to have a strong home base, which has enabled it to become such an effective force in the United States. Without that home base here, it would not have been able to achieve what it has achieved in the United States. His suggestion that we should simply buy off the shelf was effectively refuted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). We would very soon cease to be partners; we would become supplicants. We would get inferior kit at an increased price, and that must be borne in mind.
	I am bound to say on behalf of Sir Neil Thorne that the idea that the armed forces parliamentary scheme is supported by BAE, Rolls-Royce and one or two others to enable them to secure contracts is extremely unworthy of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, and he should think very carefully before making such an accusation in the House.
	I am delighted that the reception organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) for the Royal Engineers went so well. In the same vein, having been instrumental in persuading Rushmoor borough council to put up some fantastic 20 ft banners in Aldershot a couple of weeks ago that said, "Aldershot welcomes home the Grenadier Guards", I should like to see what he has done in Newbury and to tell the House that Aldershot Town football club has tonight opened its doors to the Grenadier Guards and others who have recently returned from operations and invited them to the game against Ebbsfleet—a game that I am sure everyone will rush to watch on the television, as soon as the debate is over—and they are being welcomed in free. That should be done much more often across the country. I will return to the subject of the Defence Export Services Organisation, because my hon. Friend made some important points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, like so many of my hon. Friends, brings real expertise to the House. He is not the product of some sort of party political research organisation and the hothouse of politics. As well, of course, as his distinguished record of service in the military, he has been on the front line, fighting for British interests commercially. He made an extremely important speech. I was pleased to be in Washington with him earlier in the summer, where on a cross-party basis with a number of Labour Members we tried to persuade the Americans that our not getting access to the technology for the joint strike fighter would be a potential show-stopper. We must be able to operate that aircraft autonomously. He was right to mention the defence treaty; I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to that in his winding-up speech, and tell us when it will come before the House.
	Equipment is as important to soldiers, sailors and airmen as pay and accommodation. Why would they feel valued and why should they put their life on the line if those in charge of policy fail to give them proper and sufficient equipment to do the job? The Minister for the Armed Forces listed new projects that have recently been delivered or ordered, and we welcome them, not least the Supacat, which I mentioned, and the Mastiff, which I have seen in operation in theatre, and which is unquestionably a splendid piece of equipment, although it should have been in service much sooner. However, that is the least that should be expected of a Government who have decided to embark on two major military operations simultaneously, exceeding the planning assumptions set out in their strategic defence review of 1998.
	As the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), said in 2003,
	"We have effectively been conducting continual concurrent operations, deploying further afield, to more places, more frequently and with a greater variety of missions than set out in the SDR planning assumptions."
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, we are talking about the Government's position, and their planning assumptions. They knowingly exceeded their planning assumptions by a substantial margin.
	The tempo of operations has meant that through-life cost calculations have been shot to pieces, as kit has been utilised at a far higher rate than expected. There is a shortage of helicopters and of other equipment—shortages to which hon. Friends have drawn attention. The RAF continues to operate old transport aircraft that the Government intend to replace by means of one of the most absurd procurement private finance initiatives yet invented. It is scandalous that the Royal Air Force is no nearer to getting its hands on the future strategic tanker aircraft than it was two and a half years ago, yet the first aircraft was due to be in service this year. The Australians, having straightforwardly purchased the same aeroplane, have theirs in operation today.
	So what has happened? A pattern has developed whereby senior military officers move almost seamlessly from Whitehall to the television studios or—still, thankfully—to the other place to denounce the policies of successive Labour Ministers. Distinguished and experienced officers—Field Marshal Inge, General Guthrie, Admiral Boyce, General Ramsbotham and now General Jackson—have all warned that the armed forces are being short-changed by Labour. Increasingly, such is their frustration that serving officers are forced to speak out. The Chief of the Defence Staff told the Defence Committee that there was
	"not much left in the locker".
	Brigadier Levey from Land Command said in May that "the cupboard is bare". When Sir Alan West, the Government's security Minister, was First Sea Lord, he said in response to Government plans to reduce the Royal Navy's surface fleet to 25:
	"this country needs about 30 destroyers and frigates".
	The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, said that vital equipment was being used
	"at the edge of sustainability".
	The Chief of the Air Staff has warned that the RAF is running "very lean", and now we read that they are to lose two squadrons of Tornado strike aircraft.
	Those warnings are being ignored by the Prime Minister, who has for 10 years starved the armed forces of the resources that they need to do the job that he has asked them to undertake. He says that the armed forces have been given what they need by way of urgent operational requirements, but those eventually have to be absorbed into the shrinking defence budget. There was a great fanfare yesterday for the extra 140 Mastiff armoured vehicles, but no extra money, as the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear in his opening speech. Indeed, we know from a memo leaked to  The Sunday Telegraph that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has directed that
	"no further money from the CSR would be allocated to Defence and to maintain force levels the Dept must find the savings/cuts.
	For the RN, the poor CSR deal and the commitment to 2 carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of 5 ships...from April next year has been considered.
	This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small scale operation and that is it."
	The Under-Secretary has a duty to tell the House today whether that memo is accurate.
	In the meantime, in a desperate attempt to show savings, the MOD tried subterfuge, only to be exposed by the Defence Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), which revealed that alleged savings of £781 million turned out to be £333 million, with the remaining £448 million transferred to other budgets. That chaotic situation is set against a background where everyone knows that we face an increasingly uncertain world, with Russia engaged in sabre rattling, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde warned, and turning off the energy supplies of those who challenge it. In the meantime, China has invested heavily in building its military capability and rogue states have threatened to acquire lethal long-range weapons. As the Minister of State himself said, who knows what will happen in 10 years' time? This is an uncertain world and defence is the nation's insurance policy, but the Prime Minister is not paying the premium.
	Such is the hand-to-mouth policy that the excellent defence industrial strategy launched by the able and respected Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Lord Drayson, has run into the MOD sand, and we now have a twin-track procurement policy of cash-unlimited UORs running alongside protracted, unfunded, long-term programmes which may or may not be relevant when they come to fruition. The whole procurement process has failed to adjust to the new world order. As the head of Thales, Mr. Denis Ranque, said to me when I met him in Paris on Thursday, we need to devise a new procurement strategy that reconciles the need for agility in meeting rapidly changing threats with the need for a longer-term programme into which the short-term requirements can fit.
	The real problem is that the stewardship of one of the UK's greatest assets—Her Majesty's armed forces—is in the hands of a man who has no understanding of, let alone empathy for, the armed forces. Why else would he have made the Defence Secretary's job and the Minister of State's job part-time? Why else would he have scrapped the Defence Export Services Organisation, which has helped Britain's defence industry to achieve annual export sales of £5 billion?  [ Interruption. ] The Minister for the Armed Forces is not part-time—I was referring to Lord Drayson: he, too, is a Minister of State, and he is a part-timer. The decision to scrap DESO was made personally by the Prime Minister without any consultation with his Ministers, let alone with industry. It was smuggled out as a written statement two days before the summer recess, thereby denying Parliament the chance to hold Ministers to account, contrary to all those soothing assurances that he gave on taking over from Mr. Blair. That early move graphically confirms the truth of Lord Turnbull's view that the Prime Minister exhibits "sheer Stalinist ruthlessness" and holds his colleagues in
	"more or less complete contempt".
	What an absurdity to announce a consultation after the organisation has been axed—execution first, followed by the trial. I know that Ministers are embarrassed, because they were never consulted. The Minister for the Armed Forces, of course, was not around at the time of that dirty work, but the Under-Secretary was. It was shameful, and it was met with almost universal anger and dismay, not least from Ministers who were consumed with embarrassment at that example of Stalinist ruthlessness, which could only have been undertaken by someone keen to placate those who campaign against defence exports or, indeed, agents of the campaign against the arms trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury told us, the chief executive of BAE Systems, the world's fourth largest defence contractor, wrote to the Prime Minister on 26 July. Mike Turner rightly praised DESO for providing a world-class capability in Government support for defence that was the envy of our principal competitors, who cannot believe their luck. My hon. Friend also quoted Helen Liddell, a stalwart of the Labour Benches for many years, who said in a letter to Digby Jones:
	"I have a great respect for our Trade and Investment teams but I have to be honest, the skill sets used for general UKTI work do not match at all that needed for defence sales."
	She told Digby Jones that Australia is setting up its "own version of DESO", which is an indictment of the Government. The fact that the Ministry of Defence will retain Saudi business within the Department indicates that that decision is absolutely rotten.
	Now Ministers are trying desperately to cobble together a formula to replace DESO. We await the outcome of that completely needless exercise, and if it fails to provide what we regard as an effective substitute, we shall have no hesitation in undertaking to restore DESO to the MOD after the next election and the return of a Conservative Government.
	There is a widespread view that the current tempo of military operations is unsustainable on the present budget, to which today's announcement makes little practical difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said at the outset of the debate, procurement is a welfare issue. The Government have failed to give our men and women the equipment that they need, demonstrating that they have failed to honour their part of the military covenant. We regret that the Prime Minister's timidity in failing to call a general election will deprive us of the opportunity to take steps immediately to restore the broken covenant, but we shall use the forthcoming months to champion the cause of our brave men and women in uniform, who deserve much better than they are being given by the Government.

Derek Twigg: I have told the hon. Gentleman that we are examining this. Let me make it clear that when I was talking about this issue at Headley Court a few months ago, there was a difference of opinion about how it should be addressed. The Americans have a view about how they want to pursue it. We are listening to that and we shall be talking to them—we have a liaison officer out there. It is important that we get the medical opinion right. When we reach a conclusion, we shall make a statement in the House on our approach to this type of injury.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the way in which we look after people and injuries is a crucial part of the whole process. I hope that he will now accept that what is happening at Selly Oak, Headley Court and our regional rehabilitation centres is world class in terms of saving lives and allowing many people to be rehabilitated and, in some cases, to go back to service in greater numbers than they have before.
	The hon. Member for Newbury takes a great interest in this because of his regimental connections and the casualties that his regiment has suffered. I praise him for his work in taking service personnel to Newbury. I know that that was a very good day out and that they greatly enjoyed it. He put a lot of effort into it, and I wish to put that on the record.
	We need to judge the success of our procurement policy by the success of our military operations. We are clearly seeing success. Recently, when I was in Afghanistan, I found a great feeling that much has been achieved. There is much more to do, but people felt a great sense of achievement in doing something that was right and proper. That message came across from all ranks. There can be little doubt that our forces are demonstrating in Iraq and Afghanistan that they have behind them a robust and effective procurement infrastructure.
	We have changed the infrastructure in recent years, most notably through the formation of Defence Equipment and Support and the implementation of the defence industrial strategy. Two years on, it is clear that the DIS is working and has made an impact. It is embedded in our culture and the way we do business, and it is driving better partnerships between the MOD, as customer, and industry. Clarity and transparency are the cornerstones of the strategy, building strong foundations for an equipment programme that is stable and affordable and has the flexibility to respond to changing operational requirements.
	I want to echo an important point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex: the fact that what our armed forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not getting wider recognition in the press and elsewhere. General Dannatt has also recently raised this issue, and we share those frustrations. Reporters are embedded in both theatres and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there are opportunities to talk to our armed forces personnel. They could also go to Headley Court, where on two or three occasions I have spoken to them. There are plenty of opportunities to do more and plenty of information exists. A number of documentaries have been made and there have been TV involvements, but I agree that more should be done, and I urge those in the media to do more to publicise the fantastic bravery of our armed forces. My hon. Friends and I will continue to do as much as we can to ensure that the message about the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces gets across, but we cannot force people to print something or to show something.
	Two years on, it is clear that the defence industrial strategy is working and has made an impact. It is a blueprint for change and a plan of action. It is about robust project management, proper deadlines and driving forward through life capability, making sure our forces get the kit that they need when they need it. Of course, innovation is at the heart of this.
	In order to face the defence challenges of the future, we must maximise our benefits from advancing technologies. Last autumn, we launched our defence technology strategy, which outlines the research and development agenda over the next decade. The right hon. Member for Fylde raised a particular issue about the strategy's future and I hope that we will be able to deal with that. Innovation and a focus on emerging technologies will be a clear priority. That has provided the direction for both the MOD and industry about where we need to retain UK-owned capability to ensure operational sovereignty and national security.
	This nation has a strong science and technology base. UK scientists claim about 10 per cent. of the major international prizes every year. By 2014, the Government plan to increase investment in research and development to 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Every year, the Department spends about £2.5 billion on research and development, and we are committed to pushing through our ideas into commercial spin-offs. We have steadily opened up our research programme to competition in recent years. We are well placed to reap the benefits of this process and the defence technology strategy sets the agenda on how we will go about that. Five major initiatives were launched through the DTS: the Grand Challenge; the Competition of Ideas; increased emphasis on science and technology research; engagement with industry on future investment in defence research and development; and investment in skills, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West made a point earlier. Those strands work together to ensure that the UK has the best people, skills, knowledge and industry it can.
	The Competition of Ideas proved to be extremely successful in reaching out to the wider scientific and engineering community to find solutions for the new challenges we face. I am delighted to have the opportunity to announce the very first award. The Competition of Ideas recently saw its first contract awarded to Plextec Ltd, which will research improvements in communications between vehicles and convoys. That is the kind of creative application from a small company—several issues have been raised today about the importance of small companies to defence—that has the potential to make a vital contribution to this country's defence effort. I commend my noble Friend Lord Drayson for his work in this area. It is widely accepted that he has done a magnificent job and made many major improvements.
	Many hon. Members referred to the importance of the defence industry to this country, and it is a vibrant and thriving sector. It supports more than 300,000 private sector jobs and produces revenue of around £13 billion per year. I pay tribute to it; it is crucial to this country and the defence effort. It is imperative that we get it right by ensuring the best deal for the front line and the taxpayer, and building capability throughout our armed forces is crucial to that.
	We talked about naval capability, but I would like to cover a few other areas. The capability of the Navy has improved demonstrably over the last decade. The Sea King Mk 6 anti-submarine warfare helicopter has been replaced by the new Merlin aircraft, which I saw recently during my visit to RNAS Culdrose. It is capable of significantly greater detection ranges and a faster cruising speed, and it is able to cover eight times more sea space, which represents a quantum leap in capability. Looking to the future, the maritime afloat reach and sustainability class of afloat support ships will replace the current group of ageing auxiliary fleet support helicopter ships. That will strengthen the Navy's ability to sustain an extraordinary expeditionary capability well into the 21st century.
	Much has been said today about capabilities, and as has been highlighted before, the responsiveness of our UOR programme. We have heard about the range of equipment now in theatre, and it is important to make the point that the UOR process has continued to deliver more than £1 billion of force protection—approved for Afghanistan and Iraq. It continues to deliver for our front line armed forces. To go further, as of August 2007, 91 per cent. of equipment procured under the UOR process was deemed either highly effective or effective by our troops, which is an improvement. The Viking, supplemented by UORs for a desert environment, has been praised by the Royal Marines operating in theatre. To quote one Marine:
	"Enemy mortars landed just two metres away from my Viking the other week and there wasn't even a scratch on her. Small arms fire rounds just bounce off her like stone chippings."
	Recently we have seen the deployment to Afghanistan of the guided multiple launch rocket system, or GMLRS, which has a precision strike ability of up to 70 kilometres. It has proved itself to be a remarkable asset to the Royal Artillery.
	Air capability also plays a crucial role in the success of our operations. We are in the final stages of gaining airborne stand-off radar, or ASTOR. It is a ground surveillance system designed to provide information regarding the deployment and movement of enemy forces. With contract costs of approximately £800 million, the ASTOR system comprises five aircraft and eight ground stations, together with comprehensive training and maintenance facilities at the main operating base, RAF Waddington. Clearly, the up-to-the-minute information this technology can deliver will be of exponential benefit to commanders on the ground.
	As I think was mentioned earlier, the procurement includes the future strategic tanker aircraft, which will replace the RAF's VC10s and TriStar fleets. The new platform will perform air-to-air refuelling and air transport roles. We are proceeding with a private finance initiative and aim to have the capability by 2011. We have already invested £25 million in this project—a figure that is likely to increase as we place orders.
	I shall briefly deal with several others points, especially those about helicopters. The hon. Member for North Devon spoke about the future of the Lynx helicopter. The project remains within its approved performance time and cost targets. The £1 billion cost that was announced in 2006 referred only to the contract with AgustaWestland for the development and manufacture of 70 aircraft. The overall approved cost is £2 billion, which includes significant elements outside the AgustaWestland contract, as well as VAT and the compound effect of inflation. We are committed to that.
	Helicopters, including the number that we need and the so-called shortfall, have been mentioned several times in the debate. We acknowledge that we need to do more. We have referred to the decision to purchase six Danish Merlins. We are currently converting eight Chinook mark 3 helicopters, the first of which will be available for operations in 2009. We are investing £4.5 billion in helicopters in the next 10 years, a considerable proportion of which will be used to enhance current fleets, such as the Puma and the Sea King, and to increase the flying hours for the Chinook and the attack helicopter in Afghanistan. We therefore expect further improvements in logistical support. We are making important improvements, not simply sitting around and accepting the situation. Making improvements is part of our overall strategy.

Derek Twigg: When I say that we must do more, we are clear about the need for that. We have always considered ways of improving matters for our front-line service personnel and we will continue to do that. We do not rest on our laurels and simply say, "Everything's okay today." We are always looking to improve our capability.
	The future rapid effect system—FRES—has been mentioned several times. We announced the acquisition strategy at the end of last year when we committed ourselves to holding utility vehicle trials this summer. They have taken place and it is planned to announce the result next month. Last week, we made an announcement about the system of systems integrator—SOSI—two months early. FRES is at the heart of procuring the Army's equipment, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned, and will underpin the development of the capable and highly deployable medium-weight force. FRES will deliver armoured vehicles with enhanced survivability and improved deployability, and grow potential for the future. We selected the vehicles that are participating in trials with the FRES utility design and, on 5 October, we announced the preferred bidder for the SOSI role. That is a clear sign of the Ministry's commitment to driving the FRES programme forward. The Ministry is also running a competition to select the company for the utility vehicle integration work.
	The right hon. Member for Fylde mentioned Typhoon.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's kind comments about me earlier. However, he has not tackled the points that my hon. Friends the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and I made about the Defence Export Services Organisation. We asked specific questions. Will he answer them and explain, if he has been told, why the decision was made?

Maria Miller: This is the second time that there has been a debate on the Floor of the House about the case of my constituent Mr. Paul Edwards. The previous debate was held in May 2002 by my predecessor, Mr. Andrew Hunter. In that debate, Mr. Hunter most precisely and eloquently put forward to the then Minister for Sport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), the case of my constituent Mr. Edwards, who was banned from competing in athletics for the rest of his life as a result of a drugs test in June 1997.
	In that debate Mr. Hunter detailed deep concerns about the validity of the tests that had been undertaken. In his response, the then Minister came forward with some practical and helpful suggestions about procedures that my constituent could follow to have his case reviewed and try to ensure a satisfactory outcome. The fact that we are here again, some five years on from that debate, suggests that the course of action put forward by the then Minister has not brought the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. However, I hope that the Minister today will follow in his predecessor's footsteps, by responding positively to the debate and again offering some practical advice and support for my constituent, so that we can end almost a decade of uncertainty surrounding the case.
	I asked for this debate because in September 2005 new and critical information was obtained by my constituent under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. When examined by six independent toxicological experts, that information confirmed that there were clear grounds to call for a re-examination of the 1997 decision to ban Paul Edwards from competing in athletics. This newly disclosed evidence was never considered as part of the original disciplinary hearings, or of the appeal. I wrote to the then Minister asking him to outline the procedure that my constituent should follow in the United Kingdom to ensure that the new evidence could be assessed, so that a view could be taken based on the strength of the evidence as to whether the case could be reopened.
	In his letter of 9 May 2006, the then Minister said that I should write on my constituent's behalf to the International Association of Athletics Federations—the IAAF—to ask for an appeal. Indeed, the Minister indicated that he understood that the case was already under review. I followed his advice and duly wrote to the IAAF. Some time later—I have to say that it took about three months—I received a reply from Mr. Pierre Weiss, the general secretary of the IAAF, stating that there were no provisions under IAAF rules to allow for the reopening of Mr. Edwards' case, even though there was the potential for important new evidence to be presented.
	I was somewhat surprised by that response, given that the then Minister had clearly stated that the procedure for seeking such an appeal was to write directly to the IAAF. I therefore wrote to him again, but I did not receive an explanation of why the initial guidance from the Department appeared to be incorrect. This time, however, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that I contact the World Anti-Doping Agency—the organisation responsible for monitoring the appeals processes of international federations, including the IAAF—which I duly did. The reply that I received from the agency stated that issues such as this were simply not within its jurisdiction.
	So I contacted the then Minister's office for a third time, explaining that his new suggestion, too, had proved somewhat unfruitful. Again, I did not really get an explanation of why it had not worked, but it was suggested that I contact the Court of Arbitration for Sport to ask whether it might review the case. Dutifully, I did so, and in February this year—about a year and four months after my constituent had uncovered important, previously undisclosed evidence—I received a reply stating that the court was not in a position to review its own decisions, and that the only entity entitled to review the case and possibly reduce the sanction was, yes, the IAAF, the organisation that had stated that it had no provision in its rules to reopen cases that it viewed as closed, even when there was new evidence.
	After almost two years of correspondence—and, some might say, going round in circles—I have come to the House today simply to ask the Minister to clarify once and for all the UK procedures for dealing with cases such as my constituent's, in which compelling new evidence is available that might call into question previous decisions to ban sportsmen and women from taking part in competition.
	The Minister who is here today, in his role at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, is responsible for ensuring that we have a workable anti-doping policy for the UK, and within that, the disciplinary procedures and appeals processes that are an important part of the process set out in the world anti-doping code and set out locally in the UK national anti-doping policy adopted in May 2005. Although the implementation and management of that policy is, rightly, delegated to UK Sport, the responsibility to ensure that UK athletes and other sportsmen and women have fair and transparent access to drugs monitoring, enforcement and disciplinary procedure rests with the Government.
	My constituent Mr. Edwards has had the freedom to compete in athletics taken away from him for the rest of his life. Competing in sport was the centre of his life, and receiving a lifetime ban has had a profound affect on both him and his family. The new evidence that he obtained in September 2005 has never been reviewed by a sporting body or considered by any tribunal, although it has been carefully scrutinised by six independent toxicology experts. All six agree that the information provides firm grounds to require the 1997 decision to ban Paul Edwards from competing in athletics for life to be reconsidered.
	It is not for me, or for this House, to judge the merits of that evidence, but it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that a fair, transparent and equitable appeals process is available to athletes such as Paul Edwards. I am therefore hoping that the Minister will outline the procedure that should be open to Mr. Edwards to ensure that this new evidence can be fully considered. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how best to proceed on this matter. What can the Minister take to our representatives on the International Association of Athletics Federations to help review the way in which these procedures affect UK athletes?
	The UK will be hosting the Olympic games in less than 60 months' time, so the Government have a duty to ensure that we have in place an open and workable procedure for dealing with drugs and doping in sport, including a transparent appeals process. It would appear that European bodies such as the IAAF, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Court of Arbitration for Sport do not operate as the Minister's office and his Department think they do. If that is the case, can the Minister be really sure that the UK system is as fair to athletes like Paul Edwards as I am sure he wants it to be?

Gerry Sutcliffe: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) on securing the debate. I also congratulate her on her steadfastness in representing her constituent, Mr. Edwards, which she has done to a very great extent. I want to assure her from the start that I have looked into the case in great detail. As she said, there is a lot of correspondence and many issues have been raised previously. I shall discuss the Government's overall position on doping in sport. Tonight provides a great opportunity to consider it in detail. I will come to the particular case of Mr. Edwards at the end.
	Doping undermines the integrity of sport. To those watching sport and to the young people seeking to emulate them, athletes are seen as role models. It is very important to me that those people believe that their role models are competing in an event, race or game free from the spectre of drugs.
	The anti-doping movement is entering a particularly important time, with the coming months pivotal in the development of the future landscape of anti-doping internationally. November will see the culmination of the World Anti-Doping Agency's wholesale review of its world anti-doping code at the world conference on doping in sport. I look forward to representing the UK Government there in Madrid. That conference will draw to a close 18 months of intensive consultation during which WADA has—successfully, in my opinion—sought the views of Governments, anti-doping organisations, international federations covering all of the Olympic and Paralympic sports and the majority of professional sports from all around the world.
	That has been no mean feat. I know that a huge amount of work went on here in the UK to ensure that the views of this Government, UK Sport and our national governing bodies were listened to by WADA, and I am pleased to say that, on a number of issues, it has done that. I pay tribute to UK Sport's hard work in consulting all the governing bodies. We have come a long way in a short time, and the House should remember that WADA came into being only eight years ago in November 1999. The importance of this review cannot be underestimated.
	The first world anti-doping code was introduced back in 2004 and, at that time, it represented a watershed in the fight against those who would seek to cheat by doping. This review gives us the opportunity significantly to improve the code, based on the knowledge that sports' governing bodies and anti-doping organisations have developed after three years of practical implementation.
	Alongside the code, a number of other significant developments are worthy of mention. The first is the ratification and coming into force of the UNESCO convention against doping in sport. The genesis of the convention was the Copenhagen declaration, signed by Governments at the last world conference on doping in sport in 2003, signalling their support for the measures being taken to harmonise the approach to doping in sport through the code. The UK is signatory to the Copenhagen declaration and was one of the first countries formally to ratify the UNESCO convention in April 2006. This was a legally binding document, mandating Governments to take action to fight doping. The convention came into effect in record time, again showing the priority afforded to anti-doping by this Government and other Governments around the world. The United Kingdom is already compliant with the convention, but, as the hon. Lady said, our important role as host nation for the London 2012 games requires us to be sure that we are doing all we can to stop athletes from doping, and to be seen as a world leader.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Claire Ward.]